Famous Rapper Catches LYING Cop

Head on over to https://www.establishedtitles.com/ata to get 10% OFF your entire order! Thanks again to Established Titles for sponsoring this episode!

UPDATE: We have submitted our final brief to the United States Supreme Court and are optimistic that our case will be heard. If we are successful this case will could eliminate qualified immunity in the USA. Below is Section IV of our brief which outlines our argument that qualified immunity is not, and has never been constitutional, nor was it ever written into the laws of the land. Thank you to everyone who has supported us in this fight over the last 6 years and for those that wish to see this unfair doctrine dismantled, I ask for your continued support

IV. THIS COURT SHOULD OVERRULE OR

LIMIT QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

There is another, more fundamental reason the

Court should grant this petition: It presents an

opportunity to reexamine modern qualified immunity

jurisprudence, which derives neither from the text of

§ 1983 nor the common law of official immunity.

The doctrine of qualified immunity and the clearly

established test do not appear in the text of the section

1983, the Constitution, or any other statute. As

Justice Thomas has observed, the clearly established

test “cannot be located in §1983 text.” Hoggard v.

Rhodes, 141 S. Ct. 2421, 2421 (2021) (Thomas, J.,

respecting the denial of certiorari).

Rather, qualified immunity derives from the

premise that there is “no evidence that Congress

intended to abrogate the traditional common law”

35

immunities in Section 1983 actions. Briscoe v. LaHue,

460 U.S. 325, 337 (1983). But Section 1983, as

originally enacted in 1871, contained express

language abrogating state common law immunities

which was mistakenly omitted during codification;

the provision imposed liability “any … law, statute,

ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of the State to

the contrary notwithstanding.” These counter-textual

problems with qualified immunity have been

highlighted by Professor Alexander Reinert and

others, like Judge Willett in Rogers v. Jarrett, 63

F.4th 971, 980 (5th Cir. 2023) (Willett, J., concurring).

Reinert’s research suggests that the original text of

the section 1983 explicitly displaced common law

defenses through the use of the “Notwithstanding

Clause,” but that part of the text was omitted in later

compilations. Id. As noted by Judge Willett,

[n]ot all Supreme Court Justices have overlooked

the Notwithstanding Clause. In Butz v. Economu,

the Court quoted the as passed statutory

language, including the Notwithstanding Clause,

yet, in the same breath, remarked that §1983’s

originally enacted text “said nothing about

immunity for state officials.” Indeed, members of

the Supreme Court have often noted the

Notwithstanding Clause’s existence and omission

from the U.S. Code.

Rogers, 63 F.4th at 981, fn. 11 (citations omitted).

36

Members of this Court have expressed strong

reservations with the lack of a basis for the clearly

established analysis. Baxter v. Bracey, 140 S. Ct.

1862, at 1864 (2020) (Thomas, J. dissenting from

denial of certiorari) (“There likely is no basis for the

objective inquiry into clearly established law that our

modern cases prescribe.”).

In addition, Justice Sotomayor recently wrote that

the time may have come to “reexamine its judge-made

doctrine of qualified immunity writ large,” based upon

her concerns with the clearly established standard.

N. S., only child of decedent Stokes v. Kansas City Bd.

of Police Commissioners, 143 S. Ct. 2422, 2424 (2023)

(Sotomayor, J. dissenting from denial of certiorari).

One of the problems of qualified immunity

jurisprudence—the failure to enforce constitutional

norms unless they are clearly established—is on full

display in this case. On one side of the equation are

16 United States Courts of Appeals judges,4 the

District Court judge, and the Florida trial court judge

in this case, all of whom conclude that the text of the

Fourth Amendment, Hiibel, Brown and other cases

squarely dispose of this case. On the other side is a

single Court of Appeals judge. In the concurrence,

Judge Branch then relies on this single judge’s refusal

to acknowledge binding Supreme Court precedent to

render a right not “clearly established” for one of the

most populous sections of the country. For Petitioner,

and now any passenger in Florida, Georgia, and

Alabama, what was a clearly established right to be

free from arrest for refusing to produce identification

has been upended by a single judge.

This demonstrates how the concept of clearly

established law as it currently functions creates an

arbitrary and unpredictable standard. Constitutional

rights should not hinge on a single judge’s subjective

interpretation of what constitutes clearly established

law. This approach results in a patchwork of

protections, where an individual’s rights are

recognized in one jurisdiction but denied in another.

The variability in judicial determinations of clearly

established law undermines the uniformity and

predictability essential to the rule of law and this case

highlights the problem in a very direct manner.

By reexamining and clarifying the doctrine of

qualified immunity, the Supreme Court can ensure

that constitutional rights are not dependent on the

unpredictable and varied interpretations of lower

courts. A more objective and consistent standard is

38

necessary to protect individuals’ rights uniformly and

to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

TAKE ALL THEY MONEY!!!!

LOLOLOL ESTABLISHED TITLES

Money grows on taxpayers not trees, according to the police. The police don’t care if you sue them and win. You might want to attend city meetings and let the citizens know where their money is going .

It's quite possible that cop is just ignorant and honestly believe the crap he's spewing. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

Dad is a dirty rat.

These cops are total scumbags!!! Why the heck don’t these cops know the law?

Dad just taught his son a bad lesson. Moral character is the base of a person, small matters.

His dad literally sold him out. That conversation later had to be intense. Idk if I could forgive my dad for doing that.

I happened to notice Pasco County Sheriff's Office has turned off comments on their facebook page and does not allow for messenger either. I guess the overwhelming amount of negative videos outraged people enough to cause this. This is so disgusting that the people who actually SWEAR AN OATH TO PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS are the very same people VIOLATING THEM!!!

Can you do one excessive force

Why do these Dirty Low Down Racist Cops always think they have the right to abuse and unlawfully arrest Black Men???? Racist Amerikkka will never change!